Latest news with #HouseBill1488
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Abortion, reproductive rights bills rejected in North Dakota House
Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, speaks about abortion on the House floor on Feb. 12, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Four bills related to abortion and reproductive rights failed Wednesday in the North Dakota House. A so-called personhood bill would have allowed women who get abortions to be charged with murder. Two others sought to protect access to contraception and in vitro fertilization, while a fourth bill proposed what the sponsor called a 'common-sense' approach to abortion access. All failed with significant margins, with the pro-IVF bill garnering the most support. Members voted 77-16 against House Bill 1373, sponsored by Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, which would have defined a human being to include an unborn child in state laws relating to murder, assault and wrongful death lawsuits. Abortion could be considered murder under fetal personhood proposal in North Dakota Opponents of the bill have said it would endanger IVF access in North Dakota, make it harder for doctors to treat pregnancy complications and lead to costly legal fights. North Dakotans previously rejected a personhood measure in 2014. VanWinkle argued in favor of the bill, referring to North Dakotans who accessed abortion by going to other states or obtaining medication by mail. 'The law is very clear. Murder is murder for everybody and it should be for anybody,' VanWinkle said. 'No matter what tool you use. Even if that tool is an abortion pill.' She also said that abortion may be one reason for the state's workforce shortage and referenced Scripture several times during her comments. 'Perhaps women are going to the IVF clinics because judgment is on their womb and God has effectively closed their womb because we are murdering massive amounts of children in our nation,' VanWinkle said. 'And if we would repent and do the right thing, maybe those people would actually get pregnant.' Several Republican lawmakers said it was a difficult bill. Rep. Kathy Frelich, R-Devils Lake, said she opposed the bill because it would be unenforceable. Rep. Matt Ruby, R-Minot, pointed to opposition from anti-abortion groups who argue against penalizing mothers. Members voted 87-6 against House Bill 1488, which would have allowed women to receive abortions for any reason through week 15 of pregnancy in North Dakota. Sponsor Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, said he brought the proposal in an attempt to find a 'common-sense' approach to abortion, citing a recent poll that found 55% of North Dakotans don't support the abortion ban approved by lawmakers in 2023. The law made all abortions illegal, except in cases of rape and incest in the first six weeks of pregnancy. It also included an exemption for women facing serious health risks. North Dakota judge vacates state abortion ban, ruling it unconstitutional A district court judge last fall struck down the law, finding it unconstitutionally vague and a violation of women's right to make their own health decisions. The judge also found that women have a right to choose abortion before the point of fetal viability. The state appealed the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which has yet to make a final decision on the case. Murphy, who is a medical school professor, has said he brought the bill because of abortion bans around the country that have prevented doctors from taking care of their patients. His proposal also would have allowed abortions after 15 weeks with review of a committee of doctors, except for emergency situations. Rep. Karen Rohr, R-Mandan, a member of the House Human Services Committee, labeled Murphy's bill as 'abortion on-demand.' Murphy acknowledged his bill was a 'lightning rod' for criticism. 'Nonetheless, I decided to bring it so we could have the discussion,' Murphy said. 'So we could start thinking about a way forward to really provide obstetrics care.' House Bill 1477 and House Bill 1478, sponsored by Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, D-Fargo, would have enshrined protections for IVF procedures and contraception into state law. 'North Dakotans are asking us to protect their ability to seek medical care without government interference,' said Rep. Jayme Davis, D-Rolette, during floor debate. 'Fertility impacts thousands of families across our state and modern medicine provides safe, effective treatments to help them have children.' Rep. Gretchen Dobervich, D-Fargo, said contraception is legal in North Dakota but has been under attack across the country. She added contraception is a proven way to reduce abortions. Rep. Karen Anderson, R-Grafton, said the bill protecting contraception is unnecessary because the state has not limited access to the medication. The bill to protect IVF procedures failed 59-34 and the bill that would have protected contraception access failed 66-27. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Birth control, IVF protection needed in face of attacks, North Dakota bill sponsor says
Abby Berger of Bismarck stands Jan. 29, 2025, before a legislative committee hearing with a photo illustrating the large number of syringes and vials needed to help her conceive her child. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) State Rep. Karla Rose Hanson said Wednesday that bills protecting birth control and fertilization treatments are necessary because of efforts to erode reproductive health care rights. Hanson, D-Fargo, testified before the House Human Services Committee on two bills she is sponsoring — House Bill 1478 on contraception and House Bill 1477 protecting fertility treatments. She said she's bringing the bills because of past attempts to limit reproductive rights and current efforts. For example, lawmakers this session will consider House Bill 1373, known as a personhood bill, which would define a human being to include an unborn child, and an unborn child as existing from the moment of fertilization. Hanson said the bill would essentially make some forms of contraception a crime and threaten in vitro fertilization or IVF. 'Because of all these historical and current efforts, we do need an effort to protect infertility services,' she said Wednesday. 'My constituents have expressed deep concern about their ability to access a range of reproductive health care, including contraception … as well as infertility care and specifically IVF.' Hanson's comments came as she testified before the House Human Services Committee on two bills she is sponsoring — House Bill 1478 on contraception and House Bill 1477 protecting fertility treatments. Several people testified emotionally in support of fertility treatments that they said helped them start a family. Abby Berger of Bismarck displayed a large photo of her child, surrounded by the syringes and vials used in fertility treatments. 'This visual is a testament to the lengths families like mine will go,' she said. No one testified against either bill, and no opposing testimony was filed. The committee did not take action on the bills but did have questions and comments. Rep. Kathy Frelich, R-Devils Lake, said she was reluctant to single out contraception and fertility treatments when there are other much-needed medical treatments that are not protected by state law. Hanson referenced the court ruling in Alabama that shut down in vitro fertility treatments in that state. 'I don't want that to happen to families in North Dakota,' she said. The same committee will likely hear the personhood bill, sponsored by Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, next week. There are other bills addressing reproductive rights this session. Nurses on Wednesday packed a hearing for House Bill 1282 on fertility benefits for public employees. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, addresses abortion in House Bill 1488. A hearing has not yet been scheduled on that bill. Murphy, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, proposes to allow abortions through week 15 of pregnancy in North Dakota. North Dakota's current abortion law, passed in 2023, has been deemed unconstitutional, but an appeal is pending to the North Dakota Supreme Court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
